Slashdot Mirror
Obama To Veto Anti-Net-Neutrality Legislation
An anonymous reader writes "In a statement of policy on Tuesday, the White House announced that President Obama will veto upcoming legislation that would undermine the FCC's net neutrality rules. According to the statement (PDF), the rules 'reflected a constructive effort to build a consensus around what safeguards and protections were reasonable and necessary to ensure that the Internet continues to attract investment and to spur innovation.' The statement continued, 'It would be ill-advised to threaten the very foundations of innovation in the Internet economy and the democratic spirit that has made the Internet a force for social progress around the world.'"
I'm impressed. The first time in 3 years I've been impressed, so the bar is pretty low. But good going Obama.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
ACTA is a Trojan horse for anti net neutrality.
quoting: protections were reasonable and necessary to ensure that the Internet continues to attract investment
I do not want it to 'attract investment'. that usually means money and business people and those are the very ones who have ruined what was an excellent and freedom-based comms medium.
investment means 'I own this!' from some big daddy's point of view.
that's always going to be bad.
the more you throw those insane business-minded folks at what we have, the more they ruin it. its like farting in a pool. we don't want those guys around; they ruin everything they touch.
when the internet was run by techies, it worked. now its well on its way to beign a segmented totally-ruined system. ALL because the money folks came in and polluted what we had. bascially they hijacked our internet as a 'sales tool' when it was SO MUCH more than that and so much more elevated in what it was accomplishing.
10 years from now, the internet is going to be like what TV (broadcast) is now. no one intelligent will be able to stand the bullsht that it will grow to become. I cannot stand to sit in front of a tv anymore; even 1 commecial turns me off and the 'programming' is insulting at best. give the internet 10 more years at the direction its going and it will be worthless to anyone with half a brain cell.
hope there's a new thing that we can jump to before the knuckledraggers come and ruin THAT, too.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I know you're just trolling (and/or being ironic) but Pres. Bush was barely literate? He went to Yale and Harvard and did just fine (I'd wager, much better than many people on /. would do). He was quite bright (estimates based on SAT scores) and is a voracious book reader (mostly biographies and histories). Just because Pres. Bush was not an in-your-face-I'm-smarter-than-you type of person doesn't mean that he is barely literate and useless.
You might disagree strongly with his politics and his presidency - that's completely fine - but calling him names and resorting to insinuations about his intelligence adds nothing useful to the public political discourse.
Further, what's your evidence that Pres. Obama is a good lawyer? I'm not saying he wasn't, I just only know what little there is on Wikipedia about his legal work. He only practiced law for 3 years before he entered politics (and became a consultant for a law firm). Obama was never really a lawyer, he wanted to be a politician - law was a means to politics (I'm not saying that's necessarily bad). He's never done anything long enough to get a good gage of how good or not he is at it (other than running grassroots campaigns). He's very successful but a few years doing one thing and then a few years doing something else doesn't leave much of a trail by which to judge the quality of his work. Based on his record, a 4 year presidency would fit the pattern of his life.
I'm not saying these things to be negative, I'm simply offering critiques.
He got a 1206 on his SAT's. That doesn't make him bright but pretty much average - even I scored higher. He went to Yale and Harvard because of who his father was and we have no evidence of how much work he really did while there.
Of course, it is possible that he intentionally played dumb to be more attractive to his illiterate constituency. Some say the same thing about Sarah Palin. If you want dumb people to vote for you then you have to relate to them on their level.
Just don't let anyone know your sexual preferences.
So what you're saying is that the guy who goes on and on about his wife and kids is ok, but the guy who lets something slip about his husband and kids...
Oh, nevermind. There's no talking sense into you people. "Family values" is a sham, and it makes me sick. Real family values might mean including your child who turns out to be homosexual or transgendered in your family instead of throwing him out with your trash.
Not like I care. Turns out I didn't need my family after all, just a shame they missed out on their child buying his/her first new car and buying a home because "family values" says that someone who isn't cisgendered and heterosexual can't be part of a family. It's also why when I want canned soup or chili, I buy Campbell's exclusively, even when something else is on sale. At least Campbell's soup thinks I deserve to have a family despite being LGBTQOMGWTFBBQ and has the balls to advertise to people who aren't heterosexual and to go tell "family values" to screw off.
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
How ironic, you've fallen for the trap.
Net Neutrality IS about being neutral. The only choice it makes for you is that it forces you to choose a neutral ISP, because it doesn't allow for non-neutral ones. I hope this demonstrates what a silly word game you're playing.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The problem is... we can't choose ISP's in the US. I don't know where you live but I have a choice between 10/1 cable (which behaves like 8/512k) and if I'm lucky 1/128k (DSL). Verizon FiOS said they were coming for the last couple of years and we even had a petition to urge them to come but they never did.
My parents have a choice between 5/128k cable and... that's it. They can't even get cell phone reception at their house so 4G is out too.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I used to think that net-neutrality was anti-free market, and I'm generally against new regulations (and many old ones) that violate free market principles. Then I thought about it for a while, and came to an interesting conclusion... Netflix is not Comcast's customer, I am. I pay for the bandwidth, I have an agreement with Comcast, and I want that bandwidth used for downloading content from Netflix.
So the question occurs to me: by what right would Comcast have in charging Netflix a premium, or throttling content from Netflix, when it's Comcast's own customers that are requesting that content using the bandwidth they've already paid for by agreement with Comcast?
Imagine a city that wants to charge Walmart extra because so many people are using the roads to get there instead of charging the people actually using the roads... it makes no sense.
Now if I'm being a bandwidth hog, then Comcast needs to talk to me... not the entity I'm requesting the bandwidth from. It's certainly anti-consumer to sell unlimited bandwidth at certain speeds and then throttle or charge extra for it. It's anti-consumer to sell certain speeds even with a bandwidth limit and throttle content when I haven't hit that limit yet.
On top of all that, charging content providers that compete against your own content is definitely anti-free market. I don't like a lot of regulations, it's true, but the ones that keep the free market free are fine by me; anti-monopoly, anti-lockout, anti-price fixing, anti-collusion... and when you're talking about an entity that was allowed right of way (and even monopoly status way back when they started to create their infrastructure - and in many cases maintains that broadband monopoly), it makes it even more compelling that they remain neutral w.r.t. content providers.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
You may have your complaints about the ISPs, but you can switch to another one if you don't like the one you're on.
I can choose Comcast or AT&T. Not much of a choice. I don't want either one of them regulating the internet -- regulation is government's job. If I don't like the FCC's regulations I can vote against the curent Chief Executive. If I don't like AT&T's or Comcast's "regulations" I have no recourse whaever.
But now, the FCC is trying to usurp the power to regulate the Internet from the ISPs, thus restricting the freedom of the consumer to choose the ISP he likes best
That makes no sense to me whatever. How do FCC regs prevent me from switching to Comcast from AT&T (again, my only two choices)?
It's similar to situation with lightbulbs; pretty soon we're going to have to buy $7 mecury-filled lightbulbs- supposedly to combat global warming. See, this decision could have been made at the state or local level (local= ISPs, see the relation?), but now the government has made the decision FOR YOU.
How in the hell did your comment get modded up? "At the state or local level" means state and local GOVERNMENTS. And the feds do have constitutional authority to ban incandescents under the Commerce Clause. And your inflamatory rhetoric shows either your ignorance or your dishonesty; Far from being "full of mercury", CFLs have less mercury than is released by a coal-fired generator providing the extra power needed for the incandescant.
Net Neutrality, in most cases, is a code-word for 'regulation of the Internet'.
Wrong again, son. Net Neutrality says that ISPs must pass any data you request from any data provider you request it from. It's so Comcast can't restrict you from going to Hulu or CBS.COM or YouTube, which they would gladly do to get you to sign up for cable. Net Neutrality doesn't regulate YOU, it regulates your ISP. It prevents your ISP from fucking you over.
I'll bet you were all for California deregulating the power companies (like them blackouts and brownouts?) and the Feds deregulating the banking industry (how's your 401k? Hows the value of your home?).
Free Martian Whores!
Its true with everything. Helmets, Seat Belts, Airbags, Planes that don't break up in the air. Bus drivers that arent drunk. ( I should be free to chose the bus service that does not have drunk bus drivers i don't need the government to make that decision for me.), DOT tires, gas stoves that don't blow up in my face, clean water ways ( if I can simply chose my ISP i can simply chose my water company.) etc etc etc. We need to get rid of government regulation so that the free market can work. If we leave it up to the free market then when companies poison the crap out of the ground water system, we the fully informed consumers will just switch to a competing company and the polluting company would lose in the marketplace. Its really simple. Look how good its working in china We need to be more like them.
We need to let Obama know of our support for this action. You can kevetch and criticize other things or the timeing or the lateness, but you need to show your support (as in email to the White House) for things done right and that emboldens him to do more and take more postitive steps because he knows he is working from a supported position.
Applying regulation to the internet is the gateway to further government control. A LOT of control.
The Internet was started by the US Department of Defense. The telecoms who currently make up most of the backbone have always had lots of regulation about what they can and can't do, and have also typically operated with subsidies to build capacity. Unix, which has formed the software basis of a huge number of Internet nodes, was created by the heavily regulated AT&T. The FCC has always had some authority to regulate Internet traffic.
Saying "Keep your government hands off my Internet!" makes about as much sense as "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!".
I am officially gone from
That's good
That's... also good I guess. I forget if we want laws on this or not.
That's bad
That's... let's see. It's anti-anti-net-neutrality. The anti's cancel each other out so we're just left with... ok that's good.
That's also good although... wait, has Slashdot ever run a favorable Obama headline since he took office? Maybe the stem cells thing...
Schnapple
>In early 2011, the operation became controversial when it was revealed that Operation Fast and Furious and other probes under Project Gunrunner had allowed guns to "walk" into the hands of Mexican drug cartels since as early as 2006.[2][3]
Emphasis mine.
So Obama was President in 2006?
--
BMO
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like title (of both the original article and the slashdot post) is misleading as the article uses very precise wording.
The Senate measure, which mirrors the House resolution, says Congress “disapproves” of the FCC’s net neutrality rules, which “shall have no force or effect.”
Congress, and the EFF as well, disapprove of the FCC having this sort of power over content restrictions on the internet. This power to determine what can and can't go through internet pipes (and what can't be restricted) should be restricted to the legislative branch of the government, not an agency headed by appointed members.
This legislation is not anti-net neutrality; it is keeping the FCC's power in check, which I am all for.
Besides the fact that the FCC doesn't have to listen to voters as much as Congress does, the net neutrality rules that the FCC wants to put into place are far from perfect, and (at some point at least; I am not up to date on the detail) it even included an exception to net neutrality rules in order to aid compliance with copyright enforcement.
Sources:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/net-neutrality-fcc-perils-and-promise (Oct 2009) - regarding FCC's drafting net neutrality rules
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/05/net-neutrality-fcc-trojan-horse-redux (May 2010) - issue revisited
https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/01/14 (Jan 2010) - EFF comments on net neutrality loophole regarding blocking copyright infringement.
,The uncontrollable break down you experienced that we'll call the third paragraph of your post makes it appear as though your biggest problem is your own self loathing. Your parents and the military could very well be douches, but you clearly are not comfortable with your own sexuality.
How did you get self-loathing out his 3rd paragraph? Sounded more like bitterness against his parents b/c they kicked him out when he came out to them. "Child rejected by parents feels bitterness" might qualify for some counseling, but I don't see how self-loathing comes into it.
Neither Campbell's advertising campaign nor the change of military's position on gays ACTUALLY changed anything outside of your head
The Campbells advertising didn't change anything, but it did signal their support/acceptance/desire to profit from his lifestyle, so he returns the favor by supporting them. Seems reasonable. And revoking DADT certainly did ACTUALLY change the military. It is no longer illegal to be gay in the military. If your CO finds out you are gay (however that may occur) there are no longer official consequences. I'm not sure how that doesn't qualify as a significant difference.
People just don't give a fuck, your self loathing makes you think others care
Again with the self-loathing as a motivation for what already has very clear motivations. People just don't give a fuck? Then why did a whole organization of them (the AFA) criticize Campbells for trying to sell gay people soup? B/c they don't give a fuck about sexual orientation? Why did his parent kick him out for being gay? B/c they don't give a fuck about his sexual orientation?
You know, you try to sound like a caring person with your "You ARE an acceptable human being" line but if you really are trying to be nice, you failed. You are trying to convince this guy that nobody in society judges gay people for their sexuality, but rather all that perceived animosity is really just delusional externalizing of his own self-loathing. That is so mind-bogglingly delusional in and of itself (really, there are no anti-gay sentiments from segments of society???) that if you truly believe it, you need a 24/7 caretaker to make sure you don't hurt yourself. More likely, you're a giant asshole that wanted to see just exactly how much extra evil you could pour into the world by attacking someone you perceived as vulnerable.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA